Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Penguins abandoned their wings for more useful flippers when they returned to the sea. You seem to think they're in some sort of arrested transition to flying birds. Do you expect evolution to work backwards?

There is more than feathers that connects dinosaurs to birds.
How not? You can trace the anatomical changes within them back millions of years, just like bat's wings or human arms.

They abandoned their wings, you say. That's interesting. Although I don't believe it, because penguins did not decide to stop growing their wings. What I am saying is that penguins have these flappers for a reason that suits their existence. Further, can you please show the evidence of this rather than figuring (assuming) that penguins just didn't need to evolve any more. True, they have big bodies and might be hard for wings to carry them through the air, but this does not preclude the idea that they could or should be continuing to evolve. Please show the undeniable and verifiable proof that they evolved in some way from a prior formation.
Scientists used to believe that human embryos went through every stage of evolution, it was de rigeur to believe this, but later studies showed that concept was false and no longer taught. Why do I bring this up? Because at least photographic images can be taken of the developing fetus in the womb, and it became clear that the embryo did not go through every supposed stage of animal evolution until it grew into a human being, in the womb. That concept was called ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and is no longer essential to believe, if one believes in evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Penguins abandoned their wings for more useful flippers when they returned to the sea. You seem to think they're in some sort of arrested transition to flying birds. Do you expect evolution to work backwards?

There is more than feathers that connects dinosaurs to birds.
How not? You can trace the anatomical changes within them back millions of years, just like bat's wings or human arms.

OK, well let's see. Do you agree that simple life forms gradually evolved into more complex ones?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Similar to this one. Instead of telling me what I don't understand, and instead of showing me any fossils or living animals in which there are signals (absolute and utter signs) of micro evolution with proof these beings were evolving into another form, your recent posts are similar to the above. Whatever they're called, those dinosaurs that portrayed vestages of feathers and which scientists claim became birds, do not show the process or that they actually, truly, verifiably evolved to another verified form, in these micro steps. None. If I am wrong, please tell me and show the "evidence." Thank you.
What does this mean? It means that the concept, idea, or theory is open to speculation because there really is no concrete proof of micro evolution.
Does that mean that God created all of the species and variations? I am not in an authoritative position to say. But what I do see is that even those of the scientific community that do not profess to believe in God as I do are seriously questioning the validity of many of the concepts of evolution as now standing.
Here is a fair minded article about the varying viewpoints about evolution.
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists

Crap, still grasping at straws.


You can't demand answers to questions when you refuse to learn. When you are ready to do what you promised to then we can go on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They abandoned their wings, you say. That's interesting. Although I don't believe it, because penguins did not decide to stop growing their wings. What I am saying is that penguins have these flappers for a reason that suits their existence. Further, can you please show the evidence of this rather than figuring (assuming) that penguins just didn't need to evolve any more. True, they have big bodies and might be hard for wings to carry them through the air, but this does not preclude the idea that they could or should be continuing to evolve. Please show the undeniable and verifiable proof that they evolved in some way from a prior formation.
Scientists used to believe that human embryos went through every stage of evolution, it was de rigeur to believe this, but later studies showed that concept was false and no longer taught. Why do I bring this up? Because at least photographic images can be taken of the developing fetus in the womb, and it became clear that the embryo did not go through every supposed stage of animal evolution until it grew into a human being, in the womb. That concept was called ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and is no longer essential to believe, if one believes in evolution.

Once agaun, you have borne false witness about evidence. That disqualifies you from asking for any.

 

[YoursTrue]

Crap, still grasping at straws.


You can't demand answers to questions when you refuse to learn. When you are ready to do what you promised to then we can go on.

You confirmed what I've read others are saying about the mindset of those who accept evolution as the way life as we see it in its varied forms came about. Of course, the idea of abiogenesis is out of the discussion with you, nevertheless the idea of complexity or simplicity in its imagined emergence is also out of your question. Thanks again, you proved what others have said. You just don't want to be questioned.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, well let's see. Do you agree that simple life forms gradually evolved into more complex ones?

@Subduction Zone, I know it would be embarrassing for you to have a decent discussion about this. Perhaps later.

 

[YoursTrue]

Crap, still grasping at straws.


You can't demand answers to questions when you refuse to learn. When you are ready to do what you promised to then we can go on.

I realize it's not easy for you to be honest in your approach to facts and evidence or lack thereof. Which is sad because it portrays the world at large. www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/sep/05/questioning-evolution-is-neither-science-denial-nor-the-preserve-of-creationists

 

[Subduction Zone]

You confirmed what I've read others are saying about the mindset of those who accept evolution as the way life as we see it in its varied forms came about. Of course, the idea of abiogenesis is out of the discussion with you, nevertheless the idea of complexity or simplicity in its imagined emergence is also out of your question. Thanks again, you proved what others have said. You just don't want to be questioned.

Please, you are not being honest. You are the one with the faulty mindset. Now you are not only lying to others, you are lying to yourself.

Let me remind you again that you at least implied that you would approach this honestly. You failed when you started making false claims about evidence. I have no problems with questions from an honest person. There was an honest way to approach thus, but you could not do that. Instead of saying that you were not convinced by the evidence you had to lie about it instead. That implies that you know that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize it's not easy for you to be honest in your approach to facts and evidence or lack thereof. Which is sad because it portrays the world at large. www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/sep/05/questioning-evolution-is-neither-science-denial-nor-the-preserve-of-creationists

Making false claims is a personal attack. I can show that you lied about the evidence. You agreed to the definition that scientists use. That means to deny evidence once given to you is a lie. You cannot support you c!aims. And it was not until you failed through your own bad deeds that I put the kibosh on your dishonest questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone, I know it would be embarrassing for you to have a decent discussion about this. Perhaps later.

Why would your inability to be honest embarrass me? I am disappointed. I was hoping to find an honest creationist.

When you can get over your irrational fear and admit the obvious then we can have a discussion. Until then there is only corrections. All you have are PRATT's which makes your posts rather boring.

 

[Valjean]

They abandoned their wings, you say. That's interesting. Although I don't believe it, because penguins did not decide to stop growing their wings. What I am saying is that penguins have these flappers for a reason that suits their existence. Further, can you please show the evidence of this rather than figuring (assuming) that penguins just didn't need to evolve any more. True, they have big bodies and might be hard for wings to carry them through the air, but this does not preclude the idea that they could or should be continuing to evolve. Please show the undeniable and verifiable proof that they evolved in some way from a prior formation.
Scientists used to believe that human embryos went through every stage of evolution, it was de rigeur to believe this, but later studies showed that concept was false and no longer taught. Why do I bring this up? Because at least photographic images can be taken of the developing fetus in the womb, and it became clear that the embryo did not go through every supposed stage of animal evolution until it grew into a human being, in the womb. That concept was called ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and is no longer essential to believe, if one believes in evolution.

We've been showing you the evidence all through this thread and others like it. If you're unable to extrapolate from principles or from one example to another no amount of explanation is going to satisfy you.

You keep asking the same sort of question over and over again, we answer and explain, and six posts later you're asking the same thing again; questions that would be clear had you grasped the initial explanation. You're questions indicate that you've failed to grasp even the basic principles involved -- principles we'd explained and linked to a hundred times.

You keep reiterating talking points and absolute falsehoods that I think you've taken from religious or science denial sites. No matter how many times we shoot them down, up they come again a few posts later.

Are you really this obtuse? Is your brain refusing to make connections or retain facts that would upset your mythological world-view? Are you deliberately Gish galloping? Are you just trolling? Can you not assemble the puzzle pieces and see the big picture -- even after we tell you where they go?

 

[Earthtank]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.

View attachment 32918

​

Thoughts?

. ​

I am not for evolution because there are some questions i have that i am unable to find answers to (ill ask below, hopefully you or someone else can help answer) even though i have tried very hard. I am not Christian so i don't care what the bible does or does not say able evolution.

Some of my questions on evolution (and possibly other areas so i apologize if i slightly go off topic)

1) Is there any proof that we, as humans, will continue to evolve?
2) Or is this our "final form"?
3)The reason i ask this because if we did evolve from something many, many years ago, are we done evolving?
4) If we did in fact evolve fro something or nothing, what did we start out as? a cell? atom? thin air?
5) Where did this "thing" we evolved come from? (slightly off topic, i know)
6) How did evolution "know" this is the best way for us to be "built"? There's too much "perfection" in us for this to have happened without a conscious and for us to just say "evolution" (i know, i sound like a theist here)
7) For example, how did evolution know or determine that the a woman should carry for 9 months? Why not 10? why not 8? why not 1 year? The best (and most bs) answer i have heard for this is trial and error, which answer in it of itself poses more problems than answers
8) Why are 10 fingers best for us? Why not 20 or 6? how were these results or "conclusions" reached?

Yes, i have watched many, many hours on the topic of evolution ranging from scientist for and against, to theists and atheists/agnostic debates and everything in between. And to be honest, i don't see evolution having such a strong case and it honestly reminds me so much of religion. I do not claim to be an evolutionary biologist by any means, however, my personal opinion is that if something is true, it should be able to be explained to anyone in a way they can understand it. If i need a degree to understand something so "true" then its probably not true, i am not saying any average Joe can be an evolutionary biologist however, simple questions like these should have a simple way to be answered.

 

[Valjean]

OK, well let's see. Do you agree that simple life forms gradually evolved into more complex ones?

You know the answer.
Do you?

You confirmed what I've read others are saying about the mindset of those who accept evolution as the way life as we see it in its varied forms came about.

It's not our mindset that's the problem here. It's your obtuseness.

Of course, the idea of abiogenesis is out of the discussion with you,

Where'd you get that idea? Abiogenesis is a hot topic, it's just not evolution. Your attempt to equate them just confuses things.

nevertheless the idea of complexity or simplicity in its imagined emergence is also out of your question.

Huh? Not following. What do you mean, here?

Thanks again, you proved what others have said. You just don't want to be questioned.

You're not questioning, you're Gish galloping.

 

[Valjean]

I realize it's not easy for you to be honest in your approach to facts and evidence or lack thereof. Which is sad because it portrays the world at large. www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/sep/05/questioning-evolution-is-neither-science-denial-nor-the-preserve-of-creationists

Did you read this article? What do you imagine it says? How does it support your position?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not for evolution because there are some questions i have that i am unable to find answers to (ill ask below, hopefully you or someone else can help answer) even though i have tried very hard. I am not Christian so i don't care what the bible does or does not say able evolution.

Some of my questions on evolution (and possibly other areas so i apologize if i slightly go off topic)

1) Is there any proof that we, as humans, will continue to evolve?

"proof" is an improper term to use. Science does not prove anything. The correct term is evidence and yes, there is evidence that we continue to evolve and will continue to evolve.

2) Or is this our "final form"?

There is no "final form" in evolution. Evolution does not have specific goals. It only has reactions to ever changing environments.

3)The reason i ask this because if we did evolve from something many, many years ago, are we done evolving?

Again no.

4) If we did in fact evolve fro something or nothing, what did we start out as? a cell? atom? thin air?

By definition evolution does not occur until after life exists. If you want to discuss what was before life that is the related topic of abiogenesis. But life started out as single cellular life. For over 2 billion years that is all that there was.

5) Where did this "thing" we evolved come from? (slightly off topic, i know)

Yes, off topic. Abiogenesis. But that is a whole new thread.

6) How did evolution "know" this is the best way for us to be "built"? There's too much "perfection" in us for this to have happened without a conscious and for us to just say "evolution" (i know, i sound like a theist here)

It didn't "know". Natural selection is almost a tautology. Variation guarantees a variety of any species, some will have different advantages than others. In as the environment changes different traits will be more advantageous and more likely to be passed on. No conscious activity needed.

7) For example, how did evolution know or determine that the a woman should carry for 9 months? Why not 10? why not 8? why not 1 year? The best (and most bs) answer i have heard for this is trial and error, which answer in it of itself poses more problems than answers

Pregnancy existed long before man came along. And again, it is a balance of how much development in the womb is ideal. Natural selection does quite the job at times.

8) Why are 10 fingers best for us? Why not 20 or 6? how were these results or "conclusions" reached?

A lot of it is working with what already existed. It is far more difficult than an ideal number to evolve than for life to make do with what exists currently. There is no going backwards in evolution. Which is why some of our body parts can be troublesome. A prime example is the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve. If there was such a thing as "Intelligent Design" it shows that the Designer was Incompetent when it came to us and insane when it came to giraffes:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia

Yes, i have watched many, many hours on the topic of evolution ranging from scientist for and against, to theists and atheists/agnostic debates and everything in between. And to be honest, i don't see evolution having such a strong case and it honestly reminds me so much of religion. I do not claim to be an evolutionary biologist by any means, however, my personal opinion is that if something is true, it should be able to be explained to anyone in a way they can understand it. If i need a degree to understand something so "true" then its probably not true, i am not saying any average Joe can be an evolutionary biologist however, simple questions like these should have a simple way to be answered.

This is not an atheist verses theist debate. When it comes to scientists there are still quite a few Christians and other religions. Very very very few scientists do not accept the theory of evolution. The vast majority of Christian scientists accept the concept. They do not see a problem with evolution and their personal beliefs. The creationist belief is a denial of science. In fact one has to deny reality eventually.

And yes, evolution is explainable, but you seem to have quite a bit of baggage of incorrect ideas of it. You would need to drop those first so that you can understand how it works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you read this article? What do you imagine it says? How does it support your position?

I have read it in the past which is why I know that he is merely grasping at straws again. He may only have read the title. It is so disappointing when a creationist pretends that he will try to learn and then falls back on myth, ignorance, and falsehoods.

 

[Earthtank]

Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to reply to my post. Please see my reply below.

"proof" is an improper term to use. Science does not prove anything. The correct term is evidence and yes, there is evidence that we continue to evolve and will continue to evolve.

I agree with the proof and evidence terms. You say we will continue to evolve, can you please provide some evidence?

It only has reactions to ever changing environments.

is there any evidence of us, as humans evolving and reacting to our ever changing environments?

Pregnancy existed long before man came along. And again, it is a balance of how much development in the womb is ideal.

And how is this "ideal" development determined or measured? if there is no consciousness then how does this happen? I don't agree with simply saying "the environment" and "natural selection" sufficiently answers that question

A lot of it is working with what already existed

What already existed? and how do we know that? and what "determined" that which "already existed"?

 

[Valjean]

I am not for evolution because there are some questions i have that i am unable to find answers to (ill ask below, hopefully you or someone else can help answer) even though i have tried very hard. I am not Christian so i don't care what the bible does or does not say able evolution.

Some of my questions on evolution (and possibly other areas so i apologize if i slightly go off topic)

1) Is there any proof that we, as humans, will continue to evolve?
2) Or is this our "final form"?
3)The reason i ask this because if we did evolve from something many, many years ago, are we done evolving?

Evolution is inevitable as long as we continue to reproduce, and as long as there are mutations. It may slow down with a stable environment, or speed up if the environment changes.

4) If we did in fact evolve fro something or nothing, what did we start out as? a cell? atom? thin air?
5) Where did this "thing" we evolved come from? (slightly off topic, i know)

Yes, this is a question about abiogenesis, and a quite legitimate one.
Everything starts out as atoms, and the laws of chemistry and physics take it from there: molecules, self reproducing molecules, combinations of molecules, amino acids, membranes, nucleic acids -- all easily observed forming all on their own, in any bio lab.
I've linked to some educational sites elsewhere, but it would fairly easy just to do a google search on abiogenesis.

6) How did evolution "know" this is the best way for us to be "built"? There's too much "perfection" in us for this to have happened without a conscious and for us to just say "evolution" (i know, i sound like a theist here)

Evolution knows nothing. It's an automatic process, and it doesn't produce "best" designs, just "good enough." Any first year engineering student could produce a better human body design than the one we have.

You're arguing from personal incredulity. Understand the process and the intricacy is answered.

7) For example, how did evolution know or determine that the a woman should carry for 9 months? Why not 10? why not 8? why not 1 year? The best (and most bs) answer i have heard for this is trial and error, which answer in it of itself poses more problems than answers

You could ask the same question no matter what the gestational period was. Why is this question significant?
The gestation is the length of time it takes for a baby to develop to an age it can survive ex utero but is still small enough to fit through the birth canal. It's longer for some creatures, shorter for others.

8) Why are 10 fingers best for us? Why not 20 or 6? how were these results or "conclusions" reached?

They're not "best." They're "good enough." They're a holdover from a common, Cambrian design from half a billion years ago (and I use "design" reservedly ).
Without selective pressure to change, things often don't.

Yes, i have watched many, many hours on the topic of evolution ranging from scientist for and against, to theists and atheists/agnostic debates and everything in between. And to be honest, i don't see evolution having such a strong case and it honestly reminds me so much of religion.

OK, here you've lost me. Had you grasped the basics of the mechanics of evolution you wouldn't have asked the above questions.

I don't see the comparison with religion. Explain?
Religion begins with a conclusion, looks for supporting facts, suppresses or ignores contrary facts, and discourages any research or testing. Science takes entirely the opposite tack.

Evolution is likely the most researched and best supported theory in science. It's better supported than the germ theory, the heliocentric theory or the theory of gravity.
Do you really understand the mechanisms involved? I'll try to clarify if you can give me some specifics.

I do not claim to be an evolutionary biologist by any means, however, my personal opinion is that if something is true, it should be able to be explained to anyone in a way they can understand it. If i need a degree to understand something so "true" then its probably not true, i am not saying any average Joe can be an evolutionary biologist however, simple questions like these should have a simple way to be answered.

I'm always confused by this. The basics aren't hard to understand. They're largely commonsense. I'd assumed they were thoroughly explained in high school biology, if not middle school, but after years on RF I've decided they're often not.
Ask, and a lot of us will try to clarify.

 

[Valjean]

is there any evidence of us, as humans evolving and reacting to our ever changing environments?

Like most mammals, humans naturally cease producing lactase after gestation, and can no longer digest milk efficiently. Since we began raising livestock, though, and began utilizing this resource, protracted lactase production has become widespread in livestock raising cultures.
Resistance to plague -- and, curiously, a cross-resistance to HIV -- has developed in regions with a history of plague epidemics.
There are other indicators.

Here, I found some links:
5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-darwinian-human-evolution.html

And how is this "ideal" development determined or measured? if there is no consciousness then how does this happen? I don't agree with simply saying "the environment" and "natural selection" sufficiently answers that question

There is no "ideal." If it works, nature continues to use it, until a better, competing design comes along and is selected for.
Human embryology, by the way, is hardly ideal. It's a mess. What other mammals have such difficult and hazardous births?
Sorry, but the natural mechanisms of biology do explain it, though when you get into the medical specifics things can get pretty complicated.
A consciousness is not needed. it's extraneous. Nor does it "explain" anything. It merely posits an agent.

What already existed? and how do we know that? and what "determined" that which "already existed"?

Dated fossils, DNA dating, and extrapolation from the known sequence of evolution.

I imagine you still have questions.....

 

[Skwim]

I am not for evolution because there are some questions i have that i am unable to find answers to (ill ask below, hopefully you or someone else can help answer) even though i have tried very hard. I am not Christian so i don't care what the bible does or does not say able evolution.

Some of my questions on evolution (and possibly other areas so i apologize if i slightly go off topic)

1) Is there any proof that we, as humans, will continue to evolve?[/quote]
No one knows the future.

2) Or is this our "final form"?
No one knows the future.

3)The reason i ask this because if we did evolve from something many, many years ago, are we done evolving?
No one knows the future.

4) If we did in fact evolve fro something or nothing, what did we start out as? a cell? atom? thin air?
According to the abiogenesis theories I'm familiar with we started out as organic compounds

5) Where did this "thing" we evolved come from? (slightly off topic, i know)
If you're talking about the organic compounds, no one knows for sure, but they are thought to have arisen from simple chemicals that were exposed to various pressures that altered their relationship with each other.

6) How did evolution "know" this is the best way for us to be "built"? There's too much "perfection" in us for this to have happened without a conscious and for us to just say "evolution" (i know, i sound like a theist here)
There is no knowing. It's all trial and error. Many, many, many newly created forms never made it.

7) For example, how did evolution know or determine that the a woman should carry for 9 months? Why not 10? why not 8? why not 1 year? The best (and most bs) answer i have heard for this is trial and error, which answer in it of itself poses more problems than answers
Again, it's all trial and error. There's a lot of "waste" in the evolutionary process.

8) Why are 10 fingers best for us? Why not 20 or 6? how were these results or "conclusions" reached?[/quote]
Because 10 has simply worked out better than 20 or 6. if more or less than 10 appeared, for reasons unknown such animals couldn't compete for survival as well as those with 10 fingers.

Yes, i have watched many, many hours on the topic of evolution ranging from scientist for and against, to theists and atheists/agnostic debates and everything in between. And to be honest, i don't see evolution having such a strong case and it honestly reminds me so much of religion. I do not claim to be an evolutionary biologist by any means, however, my personal opinion is that if something is true, it should be able to be explained to anyone in a way they can understand it. If i need a degree to understand something so "true" then its probably not true, i am not saying any average Joe can be an evolutionary biologist however, simple questions like these should have a simple way to be answered.

Ever wonder what causes gravity? There should be a simple answer or at least one science has come up with, but the fact is, no one knows. Not even scientists.

.